|
Cars, as we know, are only a small part of the total carbon fuel consumption. The time may come when we are allocated a personal carbon allowance, to be used when buying petrol, domestic gas, flights even, and we would have to buy traded carbon credits for consumption above our personal threshold. The carbon account could be just another account number and PIN operated by your bank, and used in the garage, online etc alongside a purchase of any carbon fuel.
|
|
At last some common sense ......
|
|
|
I'm sure that personal carbon allowances and the trading of such is in the pipeline - if only because of the margins the clearing houses (manly the big banks) will make.
But I can't help thinking its all just whistling in the wind - China has 17 trillion tons of coal and they intend to burn it. India also has big plans for coal powered power stations.
We need to be putting all our efforts into the big solutions - fusion, hydrogen based systems (the hydrogen produced using the nuclear generated power) and then we give, yes give, this technology to the 2nd 3rd world emerging countries.
|
We too have a lot of coal, 400 years' worth at least. What's more, it can be used relatively cleanly to make all sorts of things (petrol substitute for example, or the coal gas we all used to burn before most BR members were born). It's just that the processes are quite complicated, as well as rather dirty at close quarters, and we have allowed the infrastructure to be trashed and run down by crazed ideologues (no names, no pack drill).
|
|
|
China has 17 trillion tons of coal
They also have, or had, a "one child" policy. Remedying global over-population is perhaps the best method of reducing the effects we have on the environment in general. It would also relieve road congestion.
|
|
|
|
|
I supose I could approve of the ban because it would stop me lusting after tasty, fast expensive machinery and being envious envious of those who can aford to drive them.
But this stupid idea is directed at high fuel consumption vehicles that represent only a small proportion of the total number and, by virtue of in many cases their limited use, represent an even smaller proportion of total emissions. There are already disincentives to use via high fuel costs and, daftly, high VED cost.
When the nation has its own house in order by addressing the real sources of CO2 emissions, then maybe, and only maybe, might it be justified in targeting this tiny problem. What really annoys me is the threat of another restriction on freedom to choose. Is the UK, and indeed the world, in such a state that we need yet another ban or additional tax?
The degree of control, manipulation, tax-extortion, surveillance and retribution (by the state, their agencies, corporate bodies and individuals) we endure in these blessed isles has reached incredible levels. How hong are we prepared to put up with it?
|
HJ asked "Why not fuel rationing instead? People with different needs would qualify for different amounts of fuel. "
Yes indeed, why not. IMO it is the best solution and methods can be devised to get around any objections (for example, the tax allowance system is a type of rationing system).
Just as there is "carbon trading" allowed for the carbon allowances currently allocated between the high and low polluters, the same could happen with fuel allowances. Those who use less or none could sell their "unused allowance" according tho the market value, maybe even on e-bay as someone already mentioned.
If anyone wanted to buy fuel without using their "fuel-allownace-card", the forecourt price would simply be say a huge multiple -say 5 or 10 times" of the normal "allowance" price. You get the cheaper rate with your fuel-card (topped up to an allowance according to a needs based system just as other Government grants/allowances currently are), or you pay 10 times more without it.
Simple. It can be done, and it would work. But it would have to applied universally at uniform prices across UK and the whole of the European/Asian Continent to prevent cross border trafficking of cheap fuel.
|
HJ,
I think there's no supporting public policy to make rationing viable. It may not be economically important to visit Granny, but is it less valuable? Public transport simply cannot replace private now, and seems unlikely to be able to do so in my lifetime.
Better to persuade to private car manufacturers that they will be able to profit from massive investment in non-oil-based fuels, which is what the Shell guy [with others] is trying to do I think. The public wants to have freedom of movement, they want to get around locally, nationally and internationally. There are some that want green fields but most would vote for 6 x M6's if it meant getting to the Lakes more quickly, and the farmers/land owners.
My US-based brother asked, following my explanation of the green belt south of London, "did they ask the inhabitants of a grotty bedsit in Brixton if he'd like a bigger home", or only those living in West Sussex villages. 90% of us already live in urban areas; the 10% have a disproportionate amount of power. And maybe that's right, but it's a debate!
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 04/02/2008 at 19:06
|
For those that go on about public transport, remember we used to have a pretty good bus and train network which most people used most of the time due to not being able to afford an alternative. As soon as they could afford a motorbike or car they deserted public transport in droves. It simply isn't practical for the majority of journeys. For a regular commute in a big city or perhaps a very long distance, maybe, but otherwise it's less pleasant, less convenient, more expensive and takes longer than a private car or bike.
The future is cleaner, lighter cars, not more trains and buses although they will play a part.
|
|
|
|
But this stupid idea is directed at high fuel consumption vehicles that represent only a small proportion of the total number and by virtue of in many cases their limited use represent an even smaller proportion of total emissions.
What proportion of private cars achieve over 35MPG, I wonder. Would a guess of 40% be way off?
|
Im not against this idea actually and not just because both my vehicles will do over 40 mpg either.
I think though that the ban should be imposed on new cars and not on existing ones so that those out there who already own less economical cars are not forced off the road, but instead the manufacturers have to put the work in.
It has to be said that the vast majority of model ranges on sale have models that easily exceed 35 mpg so its not actually a big shift.
One idea I had and please dont shoot me down, I was just mulling it over, was how about some form of taxation for cars based on their weight and aerodynamics which as I understand it contribute a great deal to fuel consumption?
This way, IF a car maker can make a large car that is exceptionally slippery and light, people wont be forced into tiny city cars to reduce their carbon emissions. Obviously how you work out whats good and bad is for someone smarter than I, but its just an idea. At the end of the day, if a Merc ML did 50 mpg, Greenpeace would sound rather silly and George and Mavis could still have their shiny tractor with all the toys.
Of course, CO2 from cars isnt the real issue in global terms, but since one must work within the framework that all cars are evil, one must try and find a solution that solves the problem without unduly punishing car drivers.
And what about people living near where they work? My misses is going to look for a job within 10 mins walk of our house so she doesnt need the car - how about some town planning to make this possible for more people?
|
> ... how about some town planning to make this possible for more people?>>
Exactly ..... we should be thinking 30, 40, 50 years ahead - and what government is going to stick its scrawny neck out that far?
Global warming or not, fuel is going to get scarcer and more expensive and we are going to have to change the way we work and think. There will, of course, be upsides - school buses, works buses, village shops will re-open etc. It always amuses me when village dwellers have a moan about the increasing cost of fuel hitting rural life - when it's their love of the cheap/convenient car that caused its demise in the first place!
|
James May had it spot on when he was interviewed on the radio earlier. Yes it's true that driving a car returning <35 mpg is completely unnecessary. However, if they bring such a ban in, they should extend it to people living in a bigger house than is necessary, people taking more than one overseas holiday a year and all the other things that "aren't necessary" that we do, and have a marked impact on the environment.
I also find it a bit rich that such concern for the environment could come from a bloke who's made a heck of a lot of money and doubtless enjoys a big fat pension fund, the proceeds of which have come directly from the sale of oil. It's easy to be philosophical when you've "made it" and are living, very comfortably I would imagine, off money you've already made.
Cheers
DP
|
James May [ blah blah ] Cheers DP
I largely agree with you. Cars make an easy target. A nice big fat milch cow.
But what about massively improving insulation on homes and factories, reducing food miles and waste. Each time I order a new book, it arrives wrapped in 5,000 layers of mile wide bubble wrap, inside a pile of plastic peanuts, inside a large box. Banning such things as bubble wrap whilst promoting a viable alternative will help reduce waste. we need practical ideas and not just sticking a silly wind mill on each roof.
Oh, and while we are at it, how about sacking 68 of the 70 marketing and media staff Ken Livingston employs, and using the money in a positive way, such as replacing street lights with low energy ones?
|
Oh, and while we are at it, how about sacking 68 of the 70 marketing and media staff Ken Livingston employs, and using the money in a positive way, such as replacing street lights with low energy ones?
Not really worth it. You cannot turn power stations off and on every 12 hours and we are yet to find a truly efficient way of storing generated electricity so street lights burn brightly using the electricity that is not really needed. If someone is ITK about this, I would really like to heat about it as I really HATE street lights.
|
|
|
|
However if they bring such a ban in they should extend it to people living in a bigger house than is necessary people taking more than one overseas holiday a year and all the other things that "aren't necessary" that we do and have a marked impact on the environment.
Why? Not the same thing at all - only your (or "james may's", whoever he is) words. A start on waste is a good idea. Remember the possible benefits of a move such as in the title of this thread, which it seems is becoming forgotten.
|
Why? Not the same thing at all - only your (or "james may's" whoever he is) words.
So perhaps you can tell me what the difference is in principle between me driving to work in a 25 mpg car, or my family of four living in (and heating / lighting) a 6 bedroomed house, or taking four long haul flights a year. I'm not being flippant - it's exactly the same,as I see it.
If concern for the environment is really such a big issue, why pick on the car? You cannot selectively apply this kind of thinking, and certainly not at the expense of ignoring the real consumers of fossil fuels, and contributors to this so-called "global warming". Power generation, industry and aviation are far more worthy targets.
Finally, I can't believe you can be a motoring enthusiast and not know who James May is....
Cheers
DP
|
Finally I can't believe you can be a motoring enthusiast and not know who James May is....
Oh yes him. That chap that writes increasingly twee and rambling articles in the Saturday Telegraph.
But to be fair to him, he often provides the humour in Top Gear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stu, the EU proposed this and there was a massive reaction to this from the FGerman manufacturers. This was especially vehemant from VW whilst wearing their Porsche hat. I looked at the figures and for Porsche, Audi, MB and BMW their fortunes are a little different.
Porsche - currently the best mpg in the range is 29.7 so all would get the chop.
BMW - actually do OK -in the 1 and 3 series only the 135i and 335i get the chop. IN the 5 & 6 anything with a petrol engine larger than 3 litre gets chopped. The 7 series goes as does the Z4 coupe and roadster (save for the 2 litre). The x5 goes as do petrol x3s
Audi - A3, A4 and A5 are ok if you stick to petrol engines 2 litre or smaller without quattro. A4 cabriolet petrols are all sub 35. A6 quattros are bad inc the 2.7 diesel. The A8, R8, Allroad and Q7 are all sub 35mpg as is the bigger TT.
MB - too many cars here! The A and B all survive save for the 200 turbo. C class is ok with its diesels and engines upto 200. E class estate is stuffed but the saloons diesels are OK. CLS, S, SLK, CLK petrols, CLK Cabriolet, CL, SL, M, GL, R and Viano all are sub 35mpg.
Therefore you can see that these 4 manufacturers who are amongst the biggest employers in their countries are not too keen on all this. I would say that I am not sure what the EU proposal was but I am just using the 35mpg one to compare their ranges. Seems that BMW are the best prepared for all this and that MB and Porsche aren't.
|
Rogue T, Porsche could find more mpg if they wished to, but there arent yet the market forces to encourage them enough since their customers are happy to pay big fuel bills along with the purchase price. Yes it would require a shift to lighter cars, but Lotus manage it ok and with Porsche's resources, Im sure they could do so with relative ease.
Its not so much a matter of 'chopping' models out at all, rather modifying them to increase their fuel efficiency - VW claim to have managed to make large gains with their Bluemotion models in relatively simple ways - this would certainly help most models get above the threashold and with a certain amount of switch towards giant killing diesel engines in fast cars now, its not like high performance need be a thing of the past.
However, that said I think instead of legislating for a certain mpg, legislating against weight and for aerodynamics - this would have a knock on effect for mpg anyway but wouldnt penalise any particular type of car although obviously large heavy cars would not do so well ( unless incredibly aerodynamic ), already some large cars are using light-weight materials and as such, the idea is already in the minds of makers, it just needs a firmer push in that direction.
Cars today really arent that aerodynamic given that they seem to have hardly moved on since the 80's in this respect.
|
|
|
|
|
FT, the 35 mpg figure is just a putative benchmark. The real target is vehicles that only manage the low 20s or worse.
And of course an individual can turn an 'official' 40 mpg car into one that gives much less by driving like a nutter. And of course driving 25K miles a year will create much more CO2 than driving 5K.
It must be time to ban taxis that only have one passenger or, worse, drive around empty looking for fares, (In London there are so many taxis they create their own traffic jams.) together with buses that are carrying only a handful of passengers.
|
And of course an individual can turn an 'official' 40 mpg car into one that gives much less by driving like a nutter.
Presumably, any cars that might be affected by such a ban as the one proposed, would have their consumption measured accurately by "the authorities" and (perhaps) the manufacturer's figures, rather than by the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
